God is disallowed to be a just judge and you have to believe in either universalism or anihilationism. That would be politically correct.
No. I refute both universalism and annihilationism. I refute universalism for the reasons I gave above, and I refute the spiritual euthanasia of annihilationism also. I donât disallow God to do or be anything. I just wouldnât have any regard for a god obsessed with power, glory, and self. I know a better God in the Jesus of the Bible who explained and showed that real greatness is found not in power and glory but in love and service. Nor would I have regard for a god who behaves like a criminal running a protection racket where we have pay in order to be saved from himself. Instead I believe in a true savior who saves us from the evil within ourselves.
Boy, talk about misunderstanding what I said. I didnât say any such thing, Mitch. I was just saying that our refusal to believe something doesnât make it false. Or do you think you can refuse to believe that a car is about to hit you and because of your disbelief, it wonât hit you?
Seems to me that you do get to have a god after your one beliefs. Sadly I had a wonderful little satire of what would happen to me in heaven when I find that I am wrong about Universalism and such. The Modâs decided that it was not appropriate to be posted here. Here is the link It satirizes me alone, and my beliefs and shows that a universalist God has to allow some really scuzzy folks into heaven. In other words, in my opinion, a universalist God is not necessarily a just God.
I understood that perfectly. I just donât go along with your idea that you should just worship whatever god you get. Just because it exists doesnât mean I am going to serve it any more than I would serve the devil.
It is more like a man with gun than a moving car. No I am not going to refuse to believe the man with the gun exists. But that doesnât mean I am going to do whatever the man says just because he has a gun. I did not deny that your Klingon god exists or has power. I simply denied that I would ever worship or obey the thing.
I may refute universalism but this particular argument doesnât work. Their idea is that God can change everyone to be better people. So the real issue is whether God can really do such a thing and that is what donât agree with.
Thatâs not the whole story.
Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge.
If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies meâŚ
And Father is fierce for his own honor and glory and for his Sonâs. Always has been, always will be.
Yes and Jesus said when you see Him you see the Father. So is the Father different? No.
So I think the same words of Jesus apply to the Father.
"I do not seek my own glory; there are others who seek it, not only the Son but many others too. Even that obnoxious Mitch guy sings âglory to the Father.â
Which just goes to show that those who are truly great donât have to seek their own glory. Others will do so because their greatness is plain for all to see in how they serve others.
What is the first petition in The Lordâs Prayer?
Considering that God sets the rulesâŚI am very glad that our God isnât a Klingon war god. We canât just wish ourselves to a lollipop God either
The biggest problem as far as the problem of evil is concerned is to me, that our Loving God, with foreknowledge, created Satan. I donât know how we avoid that unless we say Satan is an evil co-existing being with God, and I think that is wrong as well.
I certainly donât understand it, and donât accuse me of anything, it is a deep mystery we wonât solve this side of heaven.
1 Like
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
There I go again. Giving glory to the Father.
Good, you remembered.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Not all are nor will be. There is condemnation for some.
I wonder where you learned it.
Your tune has changed. You donât need to give glory to God, according to you, because he already has it. (Check out the comment you cited here):
God should allow something else besides himself to be considered the most valuable thing there is?
It is also one of the 5 solas of Protestantism. Glory to God alone.
Wrong. I worship God BECAUSE, like Jesus said, âI do not seek my own glory.â His idea of greatness matches my own idea of greatness â not found in power and glory but in love and service. It is the devil who seek seeks power and glory for himself⌠asking Jesus to bow down to him.
Incorrect againâŚ
What I said is that God doesnât need anything from us⌠and that includes glory.
What WE NEED is a completely different matter.
Was Jesus seeking Godâs honor?
Are you trying to argue Jesus into a contradiction?
He said, âI do not seek my own glory.â
He said, " But whoever would be great among you must be your servant"
You should not be using the doctrine of the Trinity to manufacture a contradiction of Jesusâ words. That would be a misuse of the doctrine.
Who sought Godâs honor in the OT?
The following excerpt from Lewisâ âLetters to Malcolmâ has bearing on many of the exchanges above, and I think might somewhat also illustrate a point that @mitchellmckain is making?
Lewis writes:
Even now, even if â letâs make an impossible supposition â His voice, unmistakably His, said to me, âThey have misled you. I can do nothing of that sort for you. My long story ⌠is nearly over. I die, children. The story is ending,â â would that be the moment for changing sides? Would not you and I take the Viking way: âThe Giants and the Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin.â
Or some of you may remember Puddleglumâs speech to the Green witch âŚhow even if the overland and Aslan and all of that is no more than a delusion ⌠the delusion itself beats the so-called reality they are enticed by the witch to accept.
In short, it would seem to me that it is more important that we plant our flags ⌠to the point of dying on that hill if need be ⌠with the god of benevolence and goodness itself, and that if this was contrary to actual truth, i.e. if there was no god or a god who turned out to be a devil, then better to die on the losing side defending love and benevolence, defying evil to our last breath, than to submit to such evil. Lewis doesnât really believe this is an exclusive choice, of course. As Christians we believe truth and love will ultimately be one and the same - and will be triumphant - though that triumph comes in the shape of a cross rather than a dominating army, ⌠in the shape of a servant rather than a king.
But! If ⌠if ⌠one did have to choose, then the true-hearted and courageous would choose the losing, and overpowered benevolence, rather than the winning, powerful hate.
1 Like
I agree and disagree at the same time.There could not be a âgodâ so evil .Even the pantheistic gods had some standarts.That just cannot be. The univere would not be created in a first place .Howver i do agree about your other statement
I agree with you of course ⌠I donât think evil creates anything, much less anything good. But Iâm just tracing out basic faith commitments here ⌠Godâs goodness and love is more foundational to my faith ⌠even than his very existence is! And that isnât to demote the importance of his existence - which is quite important, after all! It is to show how supremely important it is that God is worthy of our trust - even when things look bleak or unjust. We trust that whatever it is that may be unjust ⌠cannot be from the God we worship, or ⌠if it is, then it will turn out to be loving justice when we can see and understand it all at the end.
2 Likes
It depends on what you mean by hell.
Christ came amongst us to heal and save; God wants all to repent and live a life of faith in Christ. This is not limited.
The rest of your comments appear to evolve around people who want to exert power and suffering - this is rejected by Christ who emphasizes service and empathy.
The argument is not about God forcing anyone, but instead would any sane person reject the Good once it is revealed in its absolute beauty? One side says no-one would reject this, and if they seem to, they would realize their sickness and ask to be healed. The other side says they have freely chosen evil and are lumped with the devil and cast into utter darkness.
The debate thus revolves around our conceptualization of human freedom and the revelation of God.